Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] FW: Use of "should" in an informative annex

Thread Links	Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

Hello Ed and all,

One small point and then one bigger one.

“Must” is deprecated in 802.11 to be replaced usually by shall.

The bigger point is that we have both IEEE-SA and ISO style to care about.

Under the terms of the PSDO, 802.11 is the body that maintains ISO 8802.

We have had the odd comment that our style is wrong (e.g. The Bibliography

is in the wrong place. The ISO rules clearly say it shall be at the end, the IEEEE

rules say beginning of the annexes.

In the case of “should” in informative text, the IEEE-SA has no rules,

as confirmed by Michelle, but from Ed’s oratory, it appears that ISO do.

Should this concern us? - i.e. provide any guidance to the matter in hand?

Best Regards,

Adrian P STEPHENS

Tel: +86 (131) 6597 8441 (mobile, China)

Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office)
Tel: +44 (7920) 084 900 (mobile, UK)

----------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47

From: ***** IEEE stds-802-11-tgm List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edward Reuss
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 11:34 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] FW: Use of "should" in an informative annex

--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---

Thank you David.

Conformance Language in Normative Text

The rule in most other SDOs is to require the use of these specified conformance terms in normative text whenever the standard:

mandates a requirement ("shall"),
mandates a restriction ("shall not"),
recommends (but not explicitly mandate) a requirement ("should"),
recommends (but not explicitly mandate) a restriction ("should not"),
permits (without making any recommendation pro or con) an alternative operation ("may").

This is partly a consequence of most SDOs being parties to the ISO, either directly or through ANSI or some other national standards regulatory body. That's why I cited the ISO directive.

"may not"

Note that the term "may not" is problematic because it is ambiguous. Generally authors should use an alternate construction for permitting a restriction, such as "may refrain from", "may choose not to", "may restrict", etc. These make the intention clear.

"must"

Some SDOs recognize the conformance language "must", while others do not as they consider it semantically equivalent to "shall", meaning it mandates a requirement. I don't recall if the IEEE recognizes the term "must" or not.

Informative Text

These SDOs also restrict the use of these same terms from any informative clauses, sections, notes and footnotes. Notes and footnotes are almost always defined as informative. If you have a normative requirement, it should always be stated in the normative prose text using one of the conformance terms listed above. Also if figures or tables are used to specify normative behavior, they need an explicit reference from the prose text using one of the conformance terms listed above. Without this prose text, figures and tables are considered informative.

Applying these Rules

As David mentions, this policy is rather restrictive, but it makes it easy to identify the normative requirements in any standards document through simple word-spotting, either visual or automated. Some SDOs also use boldface for every instance of one of these conformance terms to allow for simple visual word-spotting. This policy also eliminates the ongoing debate in this thread about syntactic and semantic equivalents for similar terms that are not on this list. Finally, it's a relatively easy rule for editors, especially new editors who have never done this sort of thing before, to follow, even if they were not born and raised in an English-speaking household. (I lived in Madrid for a year in high school and speak Spanish fairly well, but I'm amazed at how well many members from non-English households write such excellent text in English, knowing that I probably could not do nearly as well writing similar text in Spanish).

Legacy Text

Of course, most of IEEE 802.11 was written before these conformance language rules were enforced, so this places an extra heavy burden on the 802.11m editor to go back and clean up the mess from those that went before him. What can I say, except my condolences, and at least the present editor actually gets paid to do this work, unlike some of the rest of us. However, to ease his burden, we should ("shall"?, "must"?) enforce these rules on all new amendments that come through the letter ballot process.

Also, if it's any consolation SMPTE has this same problem "in spades" as it decides whether to fix or archive every single SMPTE standard going back to the early days of film in the movie industry. (Yes, some studios still use film).

I'm getting a lot of use out of my soapbox today. -- Ed R.

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:11 PM, hunter <hunter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Following up on Mark's point about modals: there are many modal preference terms. While there may not be a synonym that covers more than one of the meanings of "should", there are many other ways to express preference: 'ought', 'is preferred', 'has a preference for', 'is recommended', 'supposed to', 'needs to', 'have to', 'is right', 'is wrong', 'is obligated', 'is the goal', 'is agreed', 'is found in this authoritative book', 'my market dominant company does', 'is stated in IEEE Std 802.11-1997', .... Even 'is in most implementations' has a preferential aspect.

But permit me to step back a pace: is the 802.11 goal to make the IEEE Style Manual discouragement of "shall", "should", "may" in informative text a purely syntactical restriction? That is, is the goal that the only restriction is on the use of the exact words "shall", "should", "may" (and their direct derivatives "shall not", "shouldn't", "may not", etc.) in informative material?

If that goal is agreed, then we can easily agree never to use "should" in informative material, but allow any of the other modal (which is a semantic, not syntactical, concept) terms. Given that restriction, why would we need to determine a specific alternate to "should"? Let the author of the informative text choose whatever other _expression_ of preference he/she/it prefers (whatever the author claims to be needed, preferred, recommended, morally obligated).

A syntactical rule is easiest to enforce ("never use that word in this environment"), so what is wrong with such a rule?

If a syntactical rule is the goal, then why not simply include the "shall not use 'shall', 'should' or 'may' in informative material" rule in the IEEE 802.11 Style Guide?

The Style Guide already includes many other restrictions that we (P802.11) impose on top of those in the Style Manual; is there a problem with adding one more?

Per Adrian's point about testing: a test can only evaluate 'is'/'is not'. A complete test suite (one that tests all of the 'may's as well as the 'shall's) will have to test all of the 'should's as if they were 'may's. The problem comes with partial test suites -- one supposes that there is greater likelihood that a partial test suite will test the 'should's than the 'may's, but I wouldn't bet on it.

On 3/14/2014 06:57, Ed Reuss wrote:

--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---
Yes, the satire behind the thread did not escape me, but it did give me the opportunity to climb up on my soapbox about a sore point of mine with several letter ballot documents that I've reviewed over the last few years. (Another pet peeve is the abuse of passive voice, strangling a sentence to within 2.54 mm of its life).

A friend of mine on the SMPTE Standards Committee has a list of about a dozen of the most common mistakes found in standards documents that violate the ISO directive mentioned earlier. I will try to find it and forward it to this audience.

-- Ed Reuss

On Mar 14, 2014, at 2:41 AM, "Stephens, Adrian P" <Adrian.P.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:Adrian.P.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---

Interesting reference.

<humour note=”for those that didn’t realize I’m not being entirely serious below”>

We might consider “dare to” for “should not” and “had better” for “should”.

</humour>

Best Regards,

Adrian P STEPHENS

Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office)
Tel: +44 (7920) 084 900 (mobile, UK)

Tel: +1 (408) 2397485 (mobile, USA)

----------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47

*From:****** IEEE stds-802-11-tgm List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Mark Rison
*Sent:* 14 March 2014 09:11
*To:* STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Subject:* Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] FW: Use of "should" in an informative annex

--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---

> there are no synonyms for “should”.

"ought to"?

English has a rich set of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_modal_verbs <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_modal_verbs>

, so we had better find one!

Mark

--

Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN English/Esperanto/Français

Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre Tel: +44 1223 434600

Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS Fax: +44 1223 434601

ROYAUME UNI WWW: http://www.samsung.com/uk

*From:****** IEEE stds-802-11-tgm List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Stephens, Adrian P
*Sent:* 14 March 2014 07:07
*To:* STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Subject:* Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] FW: Use of "should" in an informative annex

--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---

Hello Ed,

I hear what you’re saying. I’m separately asking the IEEE-SA editors to clarify this in the style guide.

We may discover that there is a different position once the issue has been considered by the group

of folks who review this document.

Thinking aloud here, does “should” encompass “may” or not?

If “should” gives a recommendation to do something that is already permitted.

(A STA may do x. If y happens, the STA should do x.), then you could argue that you already have

to encompass in your testing a STA doing x and not doing x.

But if (A STA should do x) is the only mention of the ability of a STA to do x, you could argue that this

is a “superset of may”, and has a test case caused by the “should”.

In this sense we might distinguish normative and informative “shoulds”. If folks agree with this logic,

then we really need two verbs to distinguish them. synonym.com <http://synonym.com> claims there are no synonyms for

“should”.

Best Regards,

Adrian P STEPHENS

Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office)
Tel: +44 (7920) 084 900 (mobile, UK)

Tel: +1 (408) 2397485 (mobile, USA)

----------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47

*From:****** IEEE stds-802-11-tgm List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Edward Reuss
*Sent:* 13 March 2014 17:31
*To:* STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Subject:* Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] FW: Use of "should" in an informative annex

--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---

Further to Mr. Hunter's point,

> the IEEE Style Manual (2012) rule is "Interspersed normative and informative text is not allowed."

This requirement does not use conformance language "shall", "shall not", "should", "should not", "may", "may not", "must", or "must not". Instead, it uses "is not". This means that technically, as per the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2, "Rules for the structure and drafting of International Standards", this clause in the IEEE Style Manual is informative, and therefore not a normative requirement for an IEEE international standards document. ;-)

Seriously though, we have to be very careful with this because someone has to turn the output of our work into a validation test procedure, whether in the Wi-Fi Alliance or internally within a vendor company. The distinction of normative text versus informative text is critical to this purpose.

If an informative annex needs to make a recommendation, then it's not really informative. An implementor can ignore all informative parts of the standard and still implement a solution that normatively complies to the standard. If the authors wish to encourage a particular method for implementing a feature, for interoperability or performance reasons, then that needs to be stated normatively.

In practical terms, this means the entire annex probably needs to be made normative, or at least broken into sub-parts most of which can be informative, but those parts that specify the recommended procedure be marked as normative. (More work for the editors, to which I apologize, but the Wi-Fi Alliance will thank you in the end).

I hope I don't sound like I'm trying to "teach my own grandmother how to suck an egg", but I see too many drafts come to letter ballot that do not observe these requirements. I try to comment on them, but there are often too many to cite in letter ballot comments within the allocated time.

-- Ed Reuss

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 5:18 AM, hunter <hunter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:hunter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical
Reflector ---

Hi Adrian,

'Should' entails 'may', so 'may' must also be allowable in an
informative annex.

And, 'may' entails "it is not the case that it shall not", so
'shall' is equally permissible (though perhaps some accompanying
negatives may be required).

Consequently there is no IEEE Standards Association reason to
avoid any normative term in an informative annex.

Since the IEEE Style Manual (2012) rule is "Interspersed
normative and informative text is not allowed.", then the
official permission of normative terms in an informative annex
means that in such an annex the normative terms do not constitute
normative text. Normative terms may be used in an informative
annex, because they can't be normative text.

Peachy; got it.

Thanks for finding this out,

Hunter

By the way, in the American version of Latin derivatives the term
"volte-face" (pronounced "volt-face", singularly apropos in an
electrical engineering standard) uses a hyphen.

On 3/13/2014 00:12, Stephens, Adrian P wrote:

--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M
Technical Reflector ---

Please see below…

This relates to CID 2401 reviewed yesterday.

Michelle does not support my position. So, I shall do a volte
face.

We should, IMHO, resolve this comment by changing the
heading, as “recommended practice” has a

special meaning in IEEE-SA parlance. We might consider
replacing “it is recommended that” with “should”

and use the active voice, e.g. “It is recommended that pigs
fly” becomes “Pigs should fly”.

Best Regards,

Adrian P STEPHENS

Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 <tel:%2B44%20%281793%29%20404825> (office)
Tel: +44 (7920) 084 900 <tel:%2B44%20%287920%29%20084%20900>
(mobile, UK)

Tel: +1 (408) 2397485 <tel:%2B1%20%28408%29%202397485>
(mobile, USA)

----------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47

*From:*Michelle Turner [mailto:m.d.turner@xxxxxxxx
<mailto:m.d.turner@xxxxxxxx>]
*Sent:* 12 March 2014 18:08
*To:* Stephens, Adrian P
*Cc:* Kim Breitfelder
*Subject:* Re: Use of "should" in an informative annex

Hi Adrian

It's fine to have "should" in an informative annex. I would,
however, not use the words "Recommended Practice" in the
heading as that is a document type. Rather, I recommend (ha!)
something like, "Recommendation for implementation of..." We
can discuss more next week. See you in Beijing :-)

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Stephens, Adrian P
<Adrian.P.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:Adrian.P.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:Adrian.P.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:Adrian.P.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:

Hello Michelle,

Can you help me with a question – potentially reaching
out to your
fellow editors for a consensus.

In 802.11, we have an informative annex that contains
“should”
statements (and “recommended practice” in the heading).

Is this valid?

One viewpoint is that anything that affects an
implementation is
normative, because that is the whole

purpose of a standard. So this is an inconsistency.

Another viewpoint is that a “should” doesn’t require
anything,
because it’s not a “shall” – whether

the manufacturer follow it or not is up to them.

What is your position?

Best Regards,

Adrian P STEPHENS

Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 <tel:%2B44%20%281793%29%20404825>
<tel:%2B44%20%281793%29%20404825> (office)
Tel: +44 (7920) 084 900
<tel:%2B44%20%287920%29%20084%20900>
<tel:%2B44%20%287920%29%20084%20900>
(mobile, UK)

Tel: +1 (408) 2397485 <tel:%2B1%20%28408%29%202397485>
<tel:%2B1%20%28408%29%202397485> (mobile, USA)

----------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47

--
Michelle Turner
Managing Editor, Technical Community Content Publishing

IEEE Standards Association
e-mail: m.d.turner@xxxxxxxx <mailto:m.d.turner@xxxxxxxx>
<mailto:m.d.turner@xxxxxxxx <mailto:m.d.turner@xxxxxxxx>>
PH: +1 732 562 3825 <tel:%2B1%20732%20562%203825>; FAX: +1
732 562 1571 <tel:%2B1%20732%20562%201571>

_______________________________________________________________________________

IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT
send your request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this
valuable tool to communicate on the issues at hand.

SELF SERVICE OPTION: Point your Browser to -
http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGM
and then amend your subscription on the form provided. If you
require removal from the reflector press the LEAVE button.

Further information can be found at:
http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html
_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send
your request to this
CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to communicate on the
issues at hand.

SELF SERVICE OPTION:
Point your Browser to -
http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGM and
then amend your subscription on the form provided. If you
require removal from the reflector
press the LEAVE button.

Further information can be found at:
http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html
<http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html>
_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send your request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to communicate on the issues at hand.

SELF SERVICE OPTION: Point your Browser to - http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGM and then amend your subscription on the form provided. If you require removal from the reflector press the LEAVE button.

Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html <http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html> _______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send your request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to communicate on the issues at hand.

SELF SERVICE OPTION: Point your Browser to - http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGM and then amend your subscription on the form provided. If you require removal from the reflector press the LEAVE button.

Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html <http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html> _______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send your request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to communicate on the issues at hand.

SELF SERVICE OPTION: Point your Browser to - http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGM and then amend your subscription on the form provided. If you require removal from the reflector press the LEAVE button.

Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html <http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html> _______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send your request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to communicate on the issues at hand.

SELF SERVICE OPTION: Point your Browser to - http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGM and then amend your subscription on the form provided. If you require removal from the reflector press the LEAVE button.

Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html _______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send your request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to communicate on the issues at hand.

SELF SERVICE OPTION: Point your Browser to - http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGM and then amend your subscription on the form provided. If you require removal from the reflector press the LEAVE button.

Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html _______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send your request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to communicate on the issues at hand.

SELF SERVICE OPTION: Point your Browser to - http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGM and then amend your subscription on the form provided. If you require removal from the reflector press the LEAVE button.

Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html _______________________________________________________________________________

IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send your request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to communicate on the issues at hand.